New at Reason: Read our entire April issue!

reason's blockbuster April issue—the first under the benevolent eye of Matt Welch—is now online. Check out Welch's editorial note on Ron Paul's mistake. Read the bite-sized, half-funny-half-depressing Citings. Feast your eyes on an excerpt from a 30-year-old issue of the magazine, and much more.

Comments

Art-P.O.G. | March 31, 2008, 3:54pm | #

95% of the black males in [Washington, D.C.,] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal

How's Paul going to stereotype the nature of hundreds of thousands of people based on the behavior of Marion Barry? ;)

Art-P.O.G. | March 31, 2008, 3:59pm | #

“Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment,” Rothbard wrote in a manifesto titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement,

Judge Dredd?

Mike Laursen | March 31, 2008, 4:03pm | #

Cool! When's Matt going to get rid of all of the chartreuse typeface on olive background crap?

Mad Max | March 31, 2008, 4:05pm | #

Goodness, I recall being turned on to libertarianism by Rothbard's *For a New Liberty.* Murray was totally into the anarchist stuff, including private courts and judges. I didn't know he wanted to dispense with courts entirely!

It's almost as if anarchism and authoritarianism were related, or something. But perish the thought!

Edward | March 31, 2008, 4:07pm | #

From the Top: Ron Paul's Mistake

Libertarian writing at its best. Kudos to Matt Welch

Judge Dredd | March 31, 2008, 4:08pm | #

I AM THE LAW!

John | March 31, 2008, 4:32pm | #

Ron Paul can no more walk away from Lew Rockwell than he can walk away from his own grandmother who used to tell him about the good old days of slavery.

Clearly Matt Welch takes things like this out of context. He doesn't understand the nuances and anger Rockwell felt as a white man growing up in this country. Welch is a typical beltway white guy.

Bingo | March 31, 2008, 4:47pm | #

Rothbard and Rockwell rejected the “upper-middle class yuppie suburbanites”

And we would have won the primary if it wasn't for you meddling cosmotarians and your pesky mag! *shakes fist*

Chamdar | March 31, 2008, 5:05pm | #

This is only partially related to Ron Paul, but whatever happened to that twit Underdzog? The Paul H&R pieces used to get him riled up.

It was mind-boggling how he would accuse everybody else here of being racists and Nazis/fascists, but then describe Arabs as subhuman and call for their extermination as well as support people (Michelle Malkin) who think racist internment camps were justified. He'd also have the gall to question the libertarianism of Reason staff.

Brandybuck | March 31, 2008, 5:09pm | #

McCain running afoul of his own campaign finance laws: "..."

Clinton thinking lying about Bosnian snipers: "..."

Obama regularly attending a church that sings God Damn America: "..."

Ron Paul who had Lew Rockwell ghostwrite some newsletters decades ago: "OMG! WTF! Rend your beards and erect the gallows! Someone call Alpo because we're going to flog this dead horse into bite sized chunks!"

Colin | March 31, 2008, 5:20pm | #

I doubt Paul actually called King a “lying socialist satyr.” I doubt he even knows what a satyr is.

What's the over/under on how people will threaten to cancel their subscriptions because of this article?

crackerty-ass-cracker | March 31, 2008, 5:40pm | #

so his main mistake was made circa 17 years ago, and was mostly only an issue for the pussified beltway comsotarian crowd?

personally, I think you give him too much credit, but it sounds like he ran a pretty good campaign.

ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE | March 31, 2008, 5:41pm | #

Look at it this way, I doubt any other libertarian organization has gotten more "bubbas" to read or even consider economic ideas.

Sometimes to reach people, you have to meet them where they are. Just ask Obama!

Chamdar | March 31, 2008, 6:06pm | #

The die-hard paleo-libertarian Paul supporters think the Reason folks are Beltway cosmotarians as well as closet neocons. But the Underdzog types think the Reason folks are paleo-libertarians and Paultard moonbat terrorist sympathizers to boot.
Just who's right and who's wrong here? I'm confused.

Nash | March 31, 2008, 6:07pm | #

"What's the over/under on how people will threaten to cancel their subscriptions because of this article?"

Oh good yet another expose on the newsletters.

Hopefully Matt will write another McCain article for the next issue.

Pablo Escobar | March 31, 2008, 8:14pm | #

The die-hard paleo-libertarian Paul supporters think the Reason folks are Beltway cosmotarians as well as closet neocons.

As a die-hard Ron Paul supporter, i believe that Reason is not a neo-con publication. However, it is full of people who snicker from the sidelines and think they can do better at elections and know more about politics than a 11-term Congressman from Texas.

Also, they are firm believers in guilt by association re: the newsletters and don't quite understand monetary policy.

Otherwise they're decent people who do a good job promoting liberty.

Pablo Escobar | March 31, 2008, 8:23pm | #

Oh, and in response to the article...

"...that certainly speaks badly of the would-be commander in chief’s managerial competence."

Don't be deliberately dense Matt Welch.

You know damn well that that past experience is not a good proxy for future performance in government. Do you think George W. Bush's MBA and previous executive + business experience has been able to prevent the mismanagement of the Iraq war? Of course not, government has grown so large than NO President can manage it well.

As Ron Paul was the only candidate serious about cutting down on government's size, it was more likely that a President Paul would be able to know what the various agencies of government were up to, because he'd be presiding over a more sane foreign policy.

This is an example of Reason folks thinking they have the competence to pass judgment on Ron Paul, someone who knows more about how government and libertarianism works than they do. When Reason produces a 100,000 strong-volunteer army dedicated to the principles of liberty, only then should we start taking their whinging seriously.

Mike Laursen | March 31, 2008, 10:18pm | #

And we would have won the primary if it wasn't for you meddling cosmotarians and your pesky mag!

You win the thread, Bingo. That's the best quote ever on this cosmotarian b.s.

Mike Laursen | March 31, 2008, 10:25pm | #

This is an example of Reason folks thinking they have the competence to pass judgment on Ron Paul, someone who knows more about how government and libertarianism works than they do.

Lord help us if we all go around believing we're not smart enough to use our own judgement about things. That's how the human race has gotten into its biggest troubles. Too many people throughout history listening to some crazy, overconfident asshole, and thinking to themselves, "I guess I'll go along. He seems so sure of himself."

Pablo Escobar | March 31, 2008, 11:58pm | #

Matt L,
My point is that there are far more sensible criticisms to make of Paul than bringing up the rascist smears over and over again.

Reason is not known for being sloppy journalists, except when it comes to the Ron Paul newsletters.

If they want to criticise him, they would make a far more persuasive case if they went through his voting record to find out whether it's really as perfect as everyone says it is. According to the Cato Institute database of Congressional votes, he is actually quite weak on free trade subsidies. That would be putting in the hard yards and involve real journalism.

Julian Sanchez | April 1, 2008, 1:47am | #

Looking up a voting record is "real journalism"? Jesus, I hope that's not where expectations have sunk to.

the innominate one | April 1, 2008, 3:49am | #

Pablo Escobar | March 31, 2008, 8:23pm | #
Oh, and in response to the article...

"...that certainly speaks badly of the would-be commander in chief’s managerial competence."

Don't be deliberately dense Matt Welch.

You know damn well that that past experience is not a good proxy for future performance in government. Do you think George W. Bush's MBA and previous executive + business experience has been able to prevent the mismanagement of the Iraq war?

you mean his degrees earned with marginal (at best) grades and the string of failed businesses financed by his father's friends plus the boards he was appointed to and paid to be on but actually rarely attended the meetings of? no, I never would have guessed from that history that Bush would make a terrible president/ manager

paleo-lib | April 1, 2008, 6:01am | #

Feast your eyes on an excerpt from a 30-year-old issue of the magazine, and much more.

Thirty, schmirty - I own copies of this rag from the first several years it was published in the early seventies. Don't have any of the original mimeograph editions from the late sixties though.

VM | April 1, 2008, 8:31am | #

"someone who knows more about how government and libertarianism works than they do."

giggle. giggle.

*falls over laughing*

john cosmo jackson 3rd | April 1, 2008, 11:47am | #

The ron paul shit's on point, kids.

sv | April 1, 2008, 1:14pm | #

what do people think of ron bailey's article about the four great awakenings? it's pretty history-spanning and i am still chewing it. i do think that it highlights the strong American tendency to moralize, which obviously doesn't bode well for libertarianism in general.

Mike Laursen | April 1, 2008, 2:50pm | #

Who's Matt L?

Justin Raimondo | April 2, 2008, 11:28am | #

Who is Matt Welch?

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/who_is_matt_welch/

An excerpt:

"Is Welch a libertarian? Certainly not—by his own admission:

"'I’m a liberal. I take liberalism to mean a belief in policy geared toward easing poverty, extending rights to every walking human who hasn’t utterly forfeited them, getting the government out of the morality business, regulating markets judiciously, ensuring the pervasive yet hopefully efficient delivery of non-market goods such as education, health care and national defense, and otherwise having the sense to let the private sector handle private concerns. What makes me not “liberal” in the way that people who call themselves ‘progressives’ are seen as “liberal,” is that I don’t think the U.S. is the primary fount of global wickedness, I am heartily in favor of the war against Al-Qaeda.'”

Justin Raimondo | April 2, 2008, 11:33am | #

Here is the link for Welch's comments on his political ideology:

http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/2002/03/10-week/#641

So, Matt, healthcare and education are "non-market" goods? Can't wait to see the Reason cover story on "How to Regulate Markets -- Judiciously!"